Clinton & Harris: Throwing Biden under the bus. The backstabbing has started for the Democratic nomination for the 2024 presidential election.
Democrats Race Card is Getting Old: Every time the Democrats lose a partisan vote or don’t like something they can’t control, they blame it on “racists” or institutional racism. It’s getting old.
The American people (AND hopefully voters) are getting tired of being called racist by the Democrats every time they can’t get their way.
The American people are worried about inflation, Russia & China, our children’s education, law & order…and yet the Democrats seem to be focused on partisan advantage along with their hate for Trump. P.S. Trump is no longer the President.
Their WOKE “cancel culture” politics is dividing America. It’s time to start talking and working together to find consensus rather than trying to jam partisan political policies down America’s throat.
Afghanistan, now Ukraine…Taiwan next?: With weak and timid leadership from the Biden Administration, the world’s bullies are free to recklessly attack freedom seeking peoples at will.
Afghanistan was and still is a disaster. The Saigon style retreat and surrender was an embarrassment and set the tone for what has happened next.
With regard to Ukraine, we “negotiated” the dismantling of their nuclear arsenal with a “promise” to defend their sovereignty. In an even greater failed policy embarrassment, Biden doubled down on the Obama/Biden mess kits it sent Ukraine before and “strongly” objected, while Democrats block the most meaningful sanction…the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Taiwan has reason to be concerned. The Biden record abroad isn’t much better than it is at home.
The U.S. should step up and support our allies without having to put boots on the ground. When we wait and play games, our options diminish.
So much for the Biden reset.
Let Parent’s Decide: Parents should have significant input into what is taught in their government run community schools. If the school districts are not responsive, parents should have the right to send their children elsewhere.
In the article below, they state: “Social scientists have measured the factors that drove schools to stay closed last year. One study found schools with unionized teachers, more of which were located in more Democratic-voting districts, were more likely to remain all virtual. Another likewise found ‘local political partisanship and union strength,’ rather than the local severity of COVID, predicted school closing.”
It’s politics and greed.
Time for vouchers and school of choice. Let PARENTS decide.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott: Last week we flew out to Texas to give Governor Abbott our Guardian of Seniors’ Rights award and witness his Compact with Texas Seniors. It was a great event and we really appreciate the Governor’s commitment to fight for seniors.
Check out some pictures and write up here:
–Saul Anuzis
Click Here for Past Commentary from Saul
60 Plus Weekly Video Rewind
In this week’s video rewind- Texas Governor Greg Abbott shows his steadfast commitment to Seniors, Sinema & Manchin vote to keep the filibuster alive, and Elizabeth Warren recoils at thought of Democrats losing power!
Links to the articles discussed in the video:
Amazon will help US if you say yes!
At NO cost to you, you can help the 60 Plus Foundation in its efforts to support conservative policies to protect senior citizens, get rid of the death tax and defend social security and Medicare using sound fiscal policies.
Sign up…and Amazon will donate 0.5% of what you spend to the Foundation! Please help us out by signing up here…at NO cost to you!
Sign up Today! Visit https://www.60plus.org/amazon-smile-program/
Are Republicans becoming the country’s majority party?
This gives the GOP a golden opportunity to do what its predecessors didn’t: Translate a temporary gain in popularity into a lasting partisan realignment.
Are Republicans becoming the country’s majority party? Tantalizing new polling data from Gallup suggest they might. It could just be a blip, or it could be an early sign of an upheaval that would transform American politics.
The Democratic Party has held a near-constant lead in partisan affiliation surveys since the end of the Great Depression. That advantage was once huge; Democrats outnumbered Republicans by between 15 and 26 points every year between 1958 and 1980. The lead has narrowed to no more than 10 points in recent years, but the fact remains that Republicans have drawn level with Democrats or surpassed them only a few times since 1932.
That’s what makes the Gallup data so potentially Earth-shattering. Gallup found that partisan identification has shifted by a massive 14 points since early 2021. In the first quarter of 2021, 49 percent of Americans said they were Democrats — defined as solid partisans and Democratic-leaning independents — compared with only 40 percent who said they were Republicans. That lead shrunk in each quarter of the year. By the fourth quarter, the lead shifted to the GOP. As President Biden’s job approval dropped into the low 40s, 47 percent of Americans said they were Republicans compared with 42 percent who said they were Democrats.
Gallup notes that the most recent time the GOP led in partisan affiliation by five points was in the first quarter of 1995, right after Republicans secured their first House majority in more than 40 years. The only time the GOP has led by more than five points was right after the stunningly quick victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when President George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings soared to as high as 89 percent.
The Gallup poll is only one poll, so Republicans should curb their enthusiasm. But after examining it together with Pew Research Center data, I think it’s worth noting that these numbers echo previous increases in GOP affiliation. The Democratic Party lost its lead only four times. Two instances followed a successful war in the Middle East led by a Republican president (1991, 2001-2003). The other two occurred because of the collapse a Democratic president’s popularity when his party completely controlled Washington — under Bill Clinton in 1994-1995 and Barack Obama in 2010-2011.
The Left is trying to erase the meaning of citizenship
Sometime this month, the Border Patrol will make its 2 millionth arrest of those illegally entering the southern border since Joe Biden became president. Close to half of those arrested after their illegal entry have been released into the United States by Biden. They will never be deported.
Now, California wants to give all those illegal immigrants free healthcare. New York City wants to give noncitizens the right to vote. If Democrats have their way, citizenship will soon be as meaningless as they are making the southern border to be.
California has already been giving illegal immigrants under the age of 26 free healthcare for two years now. They are set to expand this privilege to illegal immigrants over the age of 50 this spring. Gov. Gavin Newsom now wants to pass new legislation that will give free healthcare to all the illegal immigrants in between those ages, an estimated 700,000 people, at the cost of $2.2 billion annually.
“We are positioned with this budget to be able to deliver on what we’ve been promoting: universal healthcare,” Newsom said while unveiling his budget last week. “I’m proud to be here, and I hope we see this replicated across the country.”
As with every terrible idea the Left devises, that is always the goal: to force those same wretched policies on the rest of the nation. Five other deep-blue states already give free healthcare to illegal immigrant children, including Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington. If Democrats manage to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate, no doubt they will force all 46 other states to do the same.
Biden’s shameful demagoguery on voting rights
President echoes Senate Democrats’ hypocrisy on filibuster
Next Thursday, on Jan. 20, President Biden will begin his second year in office.
“We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal,” Mr. Biden said a year ago in his 2021 inaugural address, holding out a political olive branch.
Earlier in the speech, he had urged Americans: “Today, at this time and in this place, let us start afresh.”
“All of us. Let us listen to one another. Hear one another. See one another. Show respect to one another.”
“Politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.”
But that was then, and regrettably, this is now.
Judging by remarks Mr. Biden made in Atlanta on Tuesday afternoon, he appears to have forgotten much of what he said and what he promised less than a year earlier on Jan. 20, 2021. (We prefer to think he had forgotten because the alternative is that he didn’t mean it in the first place.)
Biden’s failed blitz on ‘voting rights’ – Americans aren’t buying Dems’ false claims
Biden and Harris’ divisive and condescending claims about election laws have zero basis in fact.
With Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, Senate and White House for nearly a year, Americans have suffered through crisis after crisis: inflation at its highest level in 40 years, rampant crime devastating cities across the nation, a complete embarrassment on the world stage with the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, illegal immigrants crashing the southern border with impunity, the loss of America’s energy independence, and the list goes on.
It’s clear that everything these radical big government socialists touch ends in disaster – and now they’re putting “voting rights” legislation front and center. Instead of allowing free and fair elections, D.C. Democrats are trying to change the rules for their own political benefit. Make no mistake, this continued façade to federalize America’s elections is not about voter integrity, it is about control.
President Biden and Vice President Harris parachuted into Georgia last week to deliver an inaccurate and inflammatory voting rights speech. Their divisive and condescending claims have zero basis in fact and are nothing more than politically driven rhetoric meant to mislead the public – but Georgians aren’t buying it.
During the 2020 election cycle, many states accelerated the adoption of new changes to allow safe access to the polls during the height of the pandemic. Unfortunately, many forms of voting were expanded without proper safeguards in place to protect ballot integrity. In order to simultaneously maintain increased voter access and the integrity of the voting process, Georgia prioritized passing the Election Integrity Act. This law allows for more days of early voting than both New York and Delaware – blue states whose voting laws haven’t drawn the same skepticism and critique from the administration as states like Georgia and Texas.
It Doesn’t Matter That Voters Hate Joe Biden If Democrats Can Rig Elections
Just a month before the 2020 election, radio host Rush Limbaugh commented that Democrats “resent the whole premise behind elections. Look, they don’t believe they should have to persuade anybody to agree with them … The modern-day Democrats have to go through the motions of campaigning, and they have to go through the motions of trying to win the hearts and minds of voters. But they resent the h-ll out of it. And in their world, it’s the one thing standing in their way: This need, this requirement to win elections. And I’m just telling you: As soon as they can figure out a way to eliminate elections, they will do it.”
Today, Democrats are engaged in a full-court press to pass legislation that would brush state election safeguards aside and codify the shenanigans of 2020 into federal law. They’ll nuke the filibuster if they can, a step never taken previously for high-priority legislation but pursued now for a bill that nobody is marching in the streets for. Anything to cement themselves into a permanent position of power.
As Joe Biden himself said, “It’s about election subversion, not just whether or not people get to vote. Who counts the vote? That’s what this is about, that’s what makes this so different from anything else we’ve ever done.” Indeed.
School Closures Were a Catastrophic Error. Progressives Still Haven’t Reckoned With It. Sometimes you need to own up to an error so it’s not repeated.
Recently, Nate Silver found himself in the unenviable role of main character of the day on Twitter because he proposed that school closures were a “disastrous, invasion-of-Iraq magnitude (or perhaps greater) policy decision.” The comparison generated overwhelming anger and mockery, and it is not an easy one to defend: A fiasco that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and rearranged the regional power structure is a very high bar to clear. Weighing policy failures in such utterly different realms to each other is so inherently difficult that any discussion quickly devolves into “Could Superman beat up Mighty Mouse?” territory.
But these complications do not fully explain the sheer rage generated by Silver. The furnace-hot backlash seemed to be triggered by Silver’s assumption that school closings were not only a mistake — a possibility many progressives have quietly begun to accept — but an error of judgment that was sufficiently consequential and foreseeable that we can’t just shrug it off as a bad dice roll. It was a historic blunder that reveals some deeper flaw in the methods that produced it and which demands corrective action.
That unnerving implication has a mounting pile of evidence to support it. It is now indisputable, and almost undisputed, that the year and a quarter of virtual school imposed devastating consequences on the students who endured it. Studies have found that virtual school left students nearly half a year behind pace, on average, with the learning loss falling disproportionately on low-income, Latino, and Black students. Perhaps a million students functionally dropped out of school altogether. The social isolation imposed on kids caused a mental health “state of emergency,” according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The damage to a generation of children’s social development and educational attainment, and particularly to the social mobility prospects of its most marginalized members, will be irrecoverable.
Latino Dems warn about midterm fall-off
“The first step is admitting there’s a problem, and there’s a lot of people in my movement and my party that don’t,” said one strategist.
Democrats admit they’re losing ground with Latino voters.
But Latino Democratic leaders and operatives are increasingly worried that time is running out to do anything that would make a significant difference ahead of the 2022 midterms, when the party needs a robust Latino turnout to preserve its slim majorities in Congress.
For years, those leaders have warned that the party needs to invest earlier in outreach, hire more Latinos for decision-making positions and talk to Latino voters about more issues than just immigration.
But even after a presidential election marked by former President Donald Trump’s impressive gains with Latinos across the country — not just in Latino-heavy South Texas and South Florida — they see a lack of urgency in addressing those issues. Between that and a failure to keep pace with GOP efforts to communicate with Latinos on newer platforms, there’s a creeping fear that the traditional Democratic advantage with Latino voters will continue to erode in November.
“Intellectually, Democrats know they have a problem,” said Maria Teresa Kumar, founding president and CEO of Voto Latino, a grassroots political organization. “But I haven’t seen the investment that needs to happen for it to translate.”
Latinos — the largest of the nation’s fastest-growing demographic groups — have long been viewed as solidly blue Democratic voters. While President Joe Biden captured the majority of the Latino vote in 2020, Trump improved his margins in 78 of the nation’s 100 majority-Hispanic counties.
The GOP Is the Real Party of Diversity
If there’s one thing the modern left pushes more than any other narrative, it’s the dishonest notion that it represents the most diverse array of Americans. It crows about electing more Black and minority leaders… claiming that it is the force behind letting people see a face they recognize and can aspire to be like. And, by hook or crook, convince many voters that they best represent their hopes and prosperity for the future.
Well, I have bad news for the Democrat Party — this day, January 15, 2022, shows which party is the true party of diversity. That’s the GOP. And the left can’t run far enough from the truth. Because it is right in their faces — meet Winsome Sears, the new Lieutenant Governor of Virginia who was inaugurated today.
RedState has written extensively about how much of a bada** Sears is and why her election as Lieutenant Governor is important: read here, here, and here. But that’s just a small sample.
Of course, Sears wasn’t the only minority addition to the incoming Youngkin administration. As my colleague Bonchie reminded everyone earlier on Saturday, there’s a new sheriff in town: Attorney General Jason Miyares.
Democrats created gerrymandering—they must own it
Democrats have notoriously attempted to throw the Heisman hands at their policies when they turn south and point the finger to the Republicans, case in point:
The “Defund the Police” movement. Amid a crime wave in liberal cities and states, Democrats in the White House and big media tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to spin the defunding of our law enforcement on Republicans.
ObamaCare. During the 2012 presidential election, Democrats attempted to shift blame from the failing “Affordable” Care Act and deceptively tried to say the ACA was a Republican plan.
Voting Rights. This week alone, the president falsely claimed that “voting rights are under assault,” mindlessly spreading falsehoods that GOP states are hindering minorities from voting.
When the reality is, Blue states are the most restrictive states for voting, look further than New York and Delaware, where it is harder for Americans of all backgrounds to vote in local, state, and federal elections.
Lastly, and the genesis of this piece, the Democrats’ attempts to blame Republicans for gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering––like the Ku Klux Klan, segregation of the Armed Forces, ending of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, current-day voting restrictions, and the list goes on––are all creations of, you guessed it, the Democrat Party.
The so-called attempt to disenfranchise minorities through gerrymandering has the Democrats’ DNA all over it, and if you know your history, you’d understand this statement. Full stop, a non-political assertion, the Democrats invented gerrymandering. Have you ever wondered where the name gerrymandering originated? Unfortunately, the answer does not live in textbook materials in your middle school civics book; however, it does live in a multitude of literature that is easily accessible courtesy of the internet.
Good news for conservatives & Republicans
U.S. Political Party Preferences Shifted Greatly During 2021
On average, Americans’ political party preferences in 2021 looked similar to prior years, with slightly more U.S. adults identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic (46%) than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican (43%).
However, the general stability for the full-year average obscures a dramatic shift over the course of 2021, from a nine-percentage-point Democratic advantage in the first quarter to a rare five-point Republican edge in the fourth quarter.
These results are based on aggregated data from all U.S. Gallup telephone surveys in 2021, which included interviews with more than 12,000 randomly sampled U.S. adults.
Gallup asks all Americans it interviews whether they identify politically as a Republican, a Democrat or an independent. Independents are then asked whether they lean more toward the Republican or Democratic Party. The combined percentage of party identifiers and leaners gives a measure of the relative strength of the two parties politically.
Both the nine-point Democratic advantage in the first quarter and the five-point Republican edge in the fourth quarter are among the largest Gallup has measured for each party in any quarter since it began regularly measuring party identification and leaning in 1991.
Trump blows a hole in 2024 presidential debates
The RNC’s move stamps former president’s imprint on future debates.
With last week’s Trump-inspired threat to boycott 2024 debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Republican National Committee began priming the electorate for a race in which the GOP nominee might not debate at all.
“It certainly gives the candidate more of an out if they’ve decided debating is to their disadvantage to be able to say, ‘The party rules prevent me from accepting’ the commission’s invitation,” said Trevor Potter, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission who served as general counsel to Republican John McCain’s two presidential campaigns.
The RNC, he said, is attempting to “blow up the structure and therefore change the expectation to ‘will they or won’t they‘” debate.
If there was any possibility that the GOP, following Trump’s loss in 2020, would take a more traditionalist turn in the next election, the RNC’s war on the debate commission will serve as yet another reminder of how expansive the former president’s influence remains — and the stamp he’ll put on 2024 regardless of whether he runs. The debate commission was a joint creation of top officials at the RNC and the Democratic National Committee. But that was in the 1980s. Today’s populist-oriented GOP is far more mistrustful of traditional political institutions — including independent, nonpartisan organizations like the commission, which exists only to facilitate general election debates and receives no funding from the government or any political party, political action committee or candidate….
…Yet it’s also reflecting popular sentiment within the party. Republicans have long complained that debates and their media moderators are biased against them — what Saul Anuzis, a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party, called “a very serious frustration among Republicans in general, and many of the candidates in the campaigns, that we don’t necessarily get a fair deal.”
Democrats are shattering Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream
On Monday, the country celebrated the life and legacy of civil rights hero Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King had a dream that all people were created equal — the core tenets of the Declaration of Independence. He thought individuals should be judged on their character and not their race. He envisioned a world that allowed black and white people to live together in peaceful unity.
His vision ultimately cost him his life. Yet, despite his sacrifice, Democrats in the 21st century have shattered King’s dream.
King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is one of the most iconic speeches in world history. In the speech, he listed the grievances of racial inequality that had plagued the country. More importantly, he shared his visions of what he hoped for the future. King’s visions looked nothing like the society Democrats have tried to create in the 21st century.
While King wanted unity, Democrats have sought division. While King wanted integration, Democrats now yearn for a return to segregation. While King championed the greatness of the United States despite its flaws, Democrats claim the exact opposite, proclaiming the nation as irredeemably racist and destructive.
Mark Zuckerberg’s $350 Million In Election Funding Went To Far-Left Activists, Not ‘Nonpartisan’ Outfits
Even well-informed conservative groups who have studied the Center for Technology and Civic Life and its impact on the 2020 election tend to drastically understate the far-left partisan leanings of its founders and administrators. The nonprofit CTCL used approximately $350 million from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to manipulate the 2020 election in favor of President Joe Biden by funding local election offices, with most of the funding going to Democrat-run districts and functioning as a major get-out-the-vote effort.
The group’s key directors are not technology-focused individuals who incidentally pushed “left of center” voting policies. They are far-left radicals who have repeatedly expressed contempt for the rule of law in U.S. elections, and bitter contempt for conservative politicians and the tens of millions of Americans who vote for them.
Our social media research shows that CTCL grew from the seeds planted in the fever swamp of leftist election activism known as “RootsCamp 2012.” Since then, CTCL leaders have universally allied themselves with far-left causes such as critical race theory, critical legal theory, and the “defund the police” movement, and have publicly and repeatedly slandered conservatives — and even middle-of-the-road liberals — as irredeemable, dyed-in-the-wool “fascists.”
RootsCamp was billed as “a progressive conference featuring field organizers, data wranglers, and digital strategists” from Obama for America, the AFL-CIO, Arizona’s Adios Arpaio campaign, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, and other progressive organizations, many of whom were apprenticed over the years by the host of RootsCamp, the infamous New Organizing Institute.”
On November 27, 2012, Jamie McGonnigal, the director of RootsCamp, described the event and its advocacy of perpetual political activism in an interview with Campaign Sick Blogspot:
At the New Organizing Institute, we are big fans of what we refer to as ‘Engagement Organizing.’ It’s taking organizing to a new level by encouraging people to stay involved and build movements even when there isn’t a vote to worry about.
The way it works is that when you come in, you’ll see a mostly blank agenda we call ‘The Wall.’ During the opening events, you fill out a card for a session you’d like to present, turn it in to our Wall creators and head to the first pre-seeded session.
In an article for Mother Jones, Tim Murphy writes: “The names of the sessions alone tell the story: “Unf-cking Elections with Data”; “Memeification of Rapid Response Social Media Fast & Furious”; “How to generate 1000 tweets using segmented email blasts.” The New Organizing Institute was conceived as “operat[ing] in perpetual election mode grooming Democratic field operatives across the country.”
These “field operatives” include the same people who founded CTCL and determined its supposedly “nonpartisan” agenda and grant policy during the 2020 election.
Kazakhstan Events Echo Across Former Soviet Space
More than any other event since the Crimean annexation in 2014, the popular protests in Kazakhstan and the subsequent Russian-led intervention to suppress them have deeply troubled the countries of the former Soviet space. Many are now fearful that both the protests and their suppression could be repeated in their own countries, while others worry about what this means for their domestic political transitions, for the broader regional situation, and for relations with the Russian Federation. Discussions about all these issues are continuing, but widespread agreement is emerging across the former Soviet space that this region has been transformed by what has happened in and to Kazakhstan.
When the protests began, commentators in many of these countries immediately asked: could what has taken place in Kazakhstan happen elsewhere? All of them face serious economic problems, and many are in the midst or on the brink of succession crises. Consequently, it is no surprise that most analysts have concluded similar popular explosions are likely and that they will be promoted or at least exploited by local elites to succeed the current generation of leaders. In turn, this will push those now in power to do everything to remain there as long as they are alive. Such feelings are perhaps strongest in the neighboring Central Asian states, but they are not absent elsewhere. And the fact that Russian-led forces intervened to suppress the protests, admittedly at the invitation of Kazakhstani President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, has sparked speculation about whether Russia will seize northern Kazakhstan or employ similar tactics elsewhere to rein in or even end the independence of the former Soviet republics.
People in almost all of the former Soviet republics have been split in their reactions to both the protests and the Russian-led intervention: democratic groups typically backed the Kazakh demonstrators and opposed the use of force by Russia and the other countries against them, while pro-regime groups admonished the protests and argued that the Russian use of force at Kazakhstan’s invitation was the least bad alternative (Svobodnaya Pressa, January 7, 2022; Novaya Gazeta, Stanradar.com, January 8, 2022; Kasparov.ru, Idel-ural.org, January 6, 2022; The Barents Observer, Newizv.ru, January 11, 2022).
In two of the countries that contributed contingents to the Russian-led intervention, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, rebukes against this move have been especially vociferous; and in the latter, they have shaken the political establishment. Some Armenian experts are now debating whether Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian will be able to recover from an action described in some quarters as a betrayal not only of Kazakhstan but of Armenia itself. Certain commentators argue Pahinian’s decision will cost him his standing with the Western powers (Turan Today, January 7, 2022; Kasparov.ru [1], [2], January 8, 2022; Doshdu.com January 10, 2022; Kavkazsky Uzel, January 13, 2022).
EAST UKRAINE: MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT IT’S RUSSIAN-OCCUPIED TERRITORY
A well-respected UK media outlet has made a lot of people very happy, including me.
On January 15th, the Financial Times wrote a good piece on – How serious is Vladimir Putin about launching a major Ukraine offensive? In the section covering military forces, they included the below map. It’s much like any other, but differs in one significant way – the map annotation states – Russian-occupied territory – this relating to the area in eastern Ukraine.
For this, the FT deserves three big hearty cheers for telling it like it is and apologies if they’ve done so before. Let us hope other mainstream media are now brave enough to follow their truthful lead.
It’s more than just words on a map, it’s a matter of life and death.
Factually reporting eastern Ukraine as Russian-occupied territory correctly informs the public of the situation on the ground. In so doing, the knock-on effect is it counters the Kremlin’s propaganda narrative of there being a Ukrainian “Civil war.” Whereas, inaccurately writing Separatist controlled etc. clearly doesn’t do either of those things.
Despite the total absence of any credible evidence to back up their continued claim, virtually all mainstream media, including the likes of the BBC, continue to inaccurately report eastern Ukraine as “Separatist, Rebel, or Pro-Russian controlled territory. In doing so, it doesn’t take a genius to work out they make one Russian dictator very happy indeed. I suspect many journalists simply go with the apathetic flow – after all, Russia’s occupation of Crimea and part of eastern Ukraine has been going on for almost eight years. They sit down to write a piece on Ukraine and duly regurgitate the same misleading, rebel this and separatist that clichés, and use the same equally misleading maps produced long ago.
Mitch McConnell Points out an Inconvenient Truth and Immediately Gets Called Racist
Democrats do not like it when you counter their narratives with facts. That’s especially true when it comes to their sacred cow of “voter suppression.” You see, Republicans are terrible, election delegitimizing enemies of “democracy” if they suggest voter fraud should be eliminated. But the left has gotten used to claiming non-existent voter suppression, to the point of the president saying the 2022 election won’t be legitimate goes without any pushback.
Things are changing though, and Mitch McConnell pointed out an inconvenient truth on Thursday. For his trouble, he was immediately labeled a racist. Here’s what he said.
“If you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a number as Americans.”
Dumpster fires like The Daily Beast and Axios rushed to proclaim that the Minority Leader was suggesting black voters aren’t “real” Americans, and no, I’m not going to link to their dumpster fire “analysis.” Rest assured, the response to McConnell’s comments has been as stupid as you’d expect.
The deflection is purposeful here. Yes, McConnell forgot to say the word “other” in making what was an objectively true statement. Yet, the press doesn’t want to talk about the substance because it’s very inconvenient for them. Why? Because black voters do actually vote on par with white voters in the United States. In some past elections, the former has even surpassed the latter. If “voter suppression” were a real thing, how would that be possible?
